Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-03-09
WHOLE NO. l1,l98.

w nOIE NO. Ill, ,lJO.
to the Supreme Court upon the ground that
the charge made against him was not suf-
ficient to justify his detention The Judges
in the Circuit Court were divided in opinion
as to the following questions:
First-Whether the conspiracy which re-
suited in the expulsion of Chinese from
Nicolaus in the manner set forth in the
record is an offense in violation of Section
5519 of the United States statutes, and if so.
whether that section as applied to such
state OF facts is constitutional
Second = Whether the acts charged
against Baldwin and his fellow. ccnspirators
constitute an offense within the meaning
OF Section 550S of the Revised Statutes,
and if so whether that section is constitu-
tional
Third-Whether such acts. so performed,
constitute an oflense withinthe meaning
OF that clause of Section 1896 OF the Revised
Statutes, which makes it an offense for per-
sons to conspire by force to prevent, hinder
or delay the execution of any law of the
United States, and if so whether that sec
ton is constitutional.
The Court. in long and elaborate opinion
by Chief Justice Waite, holds that the
United States undoubtedly has the power
to provide for the punishment of those
who are guilty of depriving Chinese SUBJ
jects of any rights, privileges, immunities
or exemptions guaranteed to them by
treaty. Whether that power has been ex-
ercised or not must be ascertained by an
examination of the statute upon which the
charge is based, namely. the Revised Stat
utts, Sections 55l9, 550S and 1856
Section 5519, which was the one most
considered in the Court below, provides for
the punishment of those who, in any State
or territory, conspire for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any
persons or class or persons of the equal
protection OF the laws or of equal privil-
eyes and immunities under the laws In
United States vs.. Harris t106 United States,
629), it was decided that this section was
unconstitutional, as provision was made
for the punishment of conspiracies of the
character therein mentioned in the State
1t is urged, however, that this section, al
though unconstitutional as applied to the
facts set forth in the Harris case, is not so
when applied to the facts of this case, be-
cause the persons conspired against in the
former instance were citizens, while in the
latter they were aliens. entitled to protec-
lection under United States treaty. In
support of this argument reliance is had to
the well-settled rule that a statute may be
in part constitutional and pat unconstitu-
tional, and that under some circumstances
the part whichis constitutional will be en-
forced and only that which is unconstitu-
tonal will be rejected. To give effect to
this rule, however, the part which is con-
stitutional and that which is unconstitu-
tional must be capable of separation. so
that each may be placed by itself This
statute is not of that character, and the linn
itaIion must be made if at ell, by construc-
tlon, not by separation. This, II has been
often decided, is not enough 1t is clear, in
the opinion of the Court, that Section 5519
cannot be sustained in whole or in part in
its operation within the State, unless the
decision of the United States VS.. Harris is
overruled, and the Court sees no reason for
so doing.
As for Section 550S, it was held to be con-
siitutional in ex parte Yarbrougb (ll0 U.
s., 65l), and the cnly question to be de-
cided is whether that which is charged to
have been done by Baldwin constitutes an
otfense within the meaning OF the provi-
sion. In the opinion of the Court the
word citizen, as used in the statute, must
be given the same meaning it has in the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu-
ton, and that to constitute the offense
which is there provided for the wrong must
be done to one who is a citizen in that
sense 1t therefore does not apply to Chi
nese aliens.
With regard to Baldwin's liability under
Section 5336 the Court holds that the force
used by him was against the Chinese peo-
pie and not against the Government in its
effort to protect them. His conspiracy was
to il-treat the Chinese and not to hinder
the United States in the execution of any
measures to prevent such ill-treatment.
This statute, therefore, does not apply TO
this case.
After reviewing carefully, in the light of
previous decisions all the questions raised
by the case, the Court reverses the judg-
ment of the Court below, which denied the
prisoners petition for release on habeas
corpus, and remands the case for further
proceedings.
Justices Field and Harlan dissented.
Justice Field read a separate opinion,
agreeing with the msjority of the Court in
its construction of the different portions Of
the Revised Statutes. except as to the sec
ond clause of Section 1896. Justice Field
is of the opinion that the forcibe depriva-
tion of rights secured by treaty TO the sub
iects or citizens of any nation is the pre-
vention by force of the execution of the law
of the United States. If this is not so, then
there is no law in the United States
which can be invoked for the protection of
the subjects Of the Chinese nation, not
withs,anding the language of the treaty
with that country, and the same rule must
apply with reference to the rights of the
subjects or citizens of any other nation
resident in the United States. Then the
only protection is to be found in the laws
of the different States. " / cannot agree
Justice Field says, with this view of the
case"